tax rate. lewis what is your thought on this? >> caller: the president campaigned that the people in the upper bracket should pay their fair share but yet how did he get by with such a low-income right? >> guest: if that is the fact i agree with you and there is no excuse for people making that much money to pay less than everyday families. it's just wrong. it's a symptom of the problem and the problem is the growing loopholes that fueled that low disparity in this country and that is why the progressive agenda says let's have a long term approach asking the wealthy to pay their fair share so there is taxation in this country where the rich pay more and we don't have to pick the pockets of grandparents and veterans for social security. >> host: marianne stoffo washington democrat, go ahead. >> caller: hi mr. green. i'm calling to say it first in like myself that is worked all my life that i'm on social

security at 74 years old. i've make -- and i have to pay a tax on $12,000. to me that is ludicrous for seniors to have to pay when they make so little money and turn around and stay positive on it. now you have to decide can i buy my medicine or do i go without food? it's very heartbreaking for seniors of my age to have to make those decisions. is there any help out there for us? >> guest: thank you for that question and you can e-mail us at our old progressives.org web site. you are perfect example of the type of people they get hit by the present plan. you here in the news that we will have protections for the poorer end of the spectrum but what that means is the poverty line in the poverty line for individuals is $11,490 that means somebody making $12,000 will get hurt even more under the president's plan.

it's a fig leaf helping those that are barely scraping by. what help is on the way? the help that has to be on the ways electing people like elizabeth warren who aren't going to let this type of stuff happened. the reason this happened is politicians essentially when they need revenue look for a little little place of jacking up prices on the little guy. on the state level that will be increased car inspection fees and fishing licenses, things that won't be called taxes and in this case tweaking the system as the president might say paying more more in your social security. that is just wrong and a symptom of the big money interests carving themselves huge tax loopholes and czech mating politicians into hurting the little guy. at old progressives.org we are trying to support people in congress who are aware of the problem and at a gut level understand our principle and help people like you so thank you so much for calling in. >> host: adam green co-founder

of progressive change campaign committee teaches a class at george washington university on the internet and politics. thank you so much for being an art show. >> guest: thank you c-span for fostering this conversation. >> the fourth amendment to the constitution reads the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched in persons or things to be seized. the fourth amendment is our topic this week on "the communicators." our guests to familiar faces to

c-span viewers, grover norquist of americans for tax reform and laura murphy of the american civil liberties union. they are not on opposite sides on this issue. they have teamed up. laura murphy what is the script that you formed called digital form? >> guest: it's a combination of think-tanks, advocacy organizations, major internet service providers like google, yahoo!, at&t. it's a group of interested people who want changes in our electronic communications privacy laws and we need to update those laws. the last time the electronics communications privacy act was updated was in 1986 and a lot has changed since then. >> host: grover norquist what kind of access to law enforcement officials in the government have to our e-mails today? >> guest: right now it's not

treated as if it's regular mail, snail mail. they can go into it as a third-party and put it up on the cloud. what we need to do is update the law to go alongside the changes in technologies that are sending each other letters. we send each other e-mails instead of keeping europe letter in your pocket you may stored in the cloud somewhere and that's should have the same privacy that you regular snail mail does in the post office delivering something and if we can do that. we have updated this from time to time, the technology changes. the technology has been changing quicker but to send someone an e-mail is like sending them a letter. it's the same thing. the fourth amendment is still there. >> host: also joining our roundtable today is -- of the hill newspaper.

>> my first question is for mr. norquist. i'm wondering why he decided to get involved with this issue invites important? >> guest: americans for tax reform is long been interested in taxing the internet and regulating the internet and everything that deals with the size of government is of interest to americans for tax reform because we can't keep taxes low at the government keeps spending what it does. the same questions for privacy and taxes and economic issues. you also have privacy questions in general so it really is having a limited, transparent government that does things that are mentioned in the constitution and doesn't do those things that are either not mention in the constitution are specifically mentioned in the constitution that they are not supposed to do. constitutional rule of law is really part of keeping taxes and the cost of government reasonable.

>> guest: one thing i think a lot of people when they care about this issue are sort of surprised that this isn't already a legal and it's assumed they are protected in fact there was a court decision an appeals court decision called for shock which did hold they need a warrant. right now many e-mail providers already say that they require one so often we are going to get a warrant so i'm wondering why there is a need to update the law and is it possible in the next year or two to get other court decisions or a supreme court decision? >> guest: there is a big organized crime scandal is not impossible that the fbi or some other law enforcement entity would demand the production of records. these companies are doing it on a voluntary basis. there is no law protecting it though, and we want not just the company's protected but we want everybody to be protected because we have medical records, transcripts, all kinds of

things, legal documents that are on line held by a third party and we want our fourth amendment rights when it comes to on line at tibbitt ease because that is where the action is. we are not using snail mail as much as we used to. we are not using telephonetelephone s as much as we used to so we want that to all be protected by the warrant requirement. >> host: laura murphy and grover norquist with text messages be included in your view under the fourth amendment? >> guest: they should be. >> guest: yes, they should be. we have a reasonable expectation certainly general petraeus thought that his private communications were going to remain private. we all should have that reasonable expectation that when we are communicating with one person we are not communicating with the government. and we are not laying out our whole life to the government. we should have that privacy. >> guest: we want the

government to be trustworthy but we don't want to say to the american people trust the government. as we see new problems we should pass laws to protect people's privacy and their fourth amendment rights rather than say well the government has not use those yet, why are you concerned or the courts may come in and save the day. okay, they might but while we are hear why don't we make sure that the law catches up with the fourth amendment? >> guest: what about mobile location data? this is an issue the commerce mind lofgren has issued a bill in the house. she addresses the bill in the senate, doesn't address the senate -- issue so congressman lachman -- lofgren's you -- is that something we need a warrant for an ascent something you think is important that congress addressed the issue? >> guest: two things. the fourth coalition is not focusing on that.

it's focusing on x. buffer it from a civil liberties standpoint definitely legislation is needed to stop the unwarranted tracking of the individual because they have a gps in their phone or in their car. and so i think rover would agree that the law needs to be changed but that's not the focus of this digital coalition. >> guest: speaking of cars and the mobile cloud is that affect how the law looks at communications? if you are in your car you can text and phone in the car. does it affect the law of? >> guest: i'm not sure that it should. if if you are using your phone in your car and not driving and are in the passenger seat and being safe and not texting. if you wrote a letter or read a letter while in the car or walking down the street.

>> host: laura murphy how often our police using these searches today? do we know? >> guest: we really don't have a way of tracking how often these subpoenas are issued. but i think the internet service providers have hinted that it's been quite often and that they are troubled by the breadth of the request from law enforcement >> host: how many times to the i.t., do they fulfill the requests? >> guest: well now, since the horshack decision that was issued last year or in 2011, think it was 2011, the companies have asserted their rights and said to the government we are only going to turn this over to you if you have a warrant. but that is a change -- that could change. we want a law that protects that

assertion of fourth amendment rights. >> guest: the fourth amendment rights shouldn't depend on being brave and they shouldn't depend on somebody else being brave and standing up for their rights. they need to be self enforcing and that is why the law needs to catch up. i guess on one level if there is a lot of abuse we should pass a law. there are arguments for reforming the product grabs. >> host: joining us by phone is the present of the fbi association. he has been listening to our conversation. we invited them to listen to our conversation. how are fbi agents and other law enforcement government folks using e-mail searches and how often are they doing at? >> caller: it's pretty broad and it covers the whole range of government. it's a fairly complicated answer from the fbi point of view we

are conducting criminal or national security investigations that fall under one type of regulation and civil inquiries under a different kind of regulation. since you're asking about the f. di for the most part when we are seeking content from service providers for the most part right now the department justice policy is to serve a search warrant in order to get contact page the distinction has to be drawn between criminal investigations and what those are predicated on and civil investigations. so i'm afraid there is no one-size-fits-all answer really. there are all different sorts of categories. >> host: are they a valuable? >> guest: the data itself valuable? it certainly can be. >> host: when you talk about a civil inquiry, what does that mean? >> caller: for instance the fbi investigates criminal and

security violations. he might have the fcc or the environmental protection for the civil rights division of the department of justice conducting a similar investigation and they might use a subpoena to obtain data. as far as the criminal side and what the fbi does at the moment because we work through the united states attorneys office which is a department of justice, the department justice has a policy for e-mail content held by providers a warrant is required at this point. >> host: agent konrad motyka brandon sasso is here and ask a question. >> guest: i'm wondering if you think the way it is written and there is a distinction between whether e-mails are 180 days over whether they been opened or not and if that distinction makes sense with the people use e-mails now and if that something that congress should change? >> caller: well, it was under

review during the prior congress and is under review by this congress. i think there is no doubt going to be certain modifications made and i also know that it's the tradition of the department justice or a 180 day disc tension is an artificial one. we take our legal guidance from the department justice so we would follow that. i think the issue from our perspective in my perspective in particular is because the question is so complicated if you update and change the laws were more changes are going to be put in place that will make the job of law enforcement more difficult. if there's a way to change the law to make the process better knowledge in the fact now that the department justice wants to have a warrant gameplay in terms of the changes there are disclosure issues and emergency exception issues as well that have to be addressed as the slow moves forward and if any changes are contemplated. >> host: grover norquist has a question.

>> guest: d. think an e-mail should have any less protection than that letter under the fourth amendment? >> caller: now you are asking me again, that is my personal view at at this point as an active-duty fbi agent. i'm simply here to discuss the policies. i'm not able to get into my personal view as far as how i feel about those questions. as i said the department justice itself and the regulations as weeks about the e-mail communication requiring a warrant issued by a court. >> guest: it's common sense. what is the argument that an e-mail is different from a letter for the purposes of the government coming in reading other people's mail? >> caller: it isn't so much the point of view but the mechanisms prior to the contemplated changes there was a situation where they

administrator -- those were very specific narrow categories so i mean as far as i was concerned right now the law is in treating it differently except for content that is older than 180 days and that is being looked at differently right now under the present law and that is where folks are seeking to make adjustments. now under present policy anything that is 180 days or less is treated the same way as a written communication. >> guest: i just want to clarify for the average listener , to understanding the subpoenas are used for e-mails that are older than 180 days, not warrants and the justice department has not implemented a new procedure even though they have said on record before the judiciary committee that there is no principled distinction.

that came out of 1984 when people were only allowed a certain number of e-mails and they were stored for a limited time and downloaded onto your private computer. now the e-mails are stored for an infinite period almost on the servers of the internet service provider. so the law is too old to fit the current circumstances. but i think grover's point is a good one. what is it about e-mail that deserves any less protection than your file cabinet. someone comes into your office and wants to search her file cabinet they have to have a warned. >> guest: the letter has been in your house for six months, should it be something the government can walk into a get without a warrant? if not how do you make the argument that an e-mail somehow loses its his fourth amendment rights when it gets old? >> host: agent konrad motyka

any response? >> caller: i think the government is saying go ahead congress and take a look at this and make your updates but please keep our concerns uppermost and let's ensure that we don't create an impediment to an investigation while the update this and taken to her counter digital age. >> host: konrad motyka is this a conversation that you and other fbi agents have regularly about e-mail? >> caller: not from a philosophical perspective. to be honest we are more focused on the practical aspects. the practical aspects if the instructions are to obtain a warned that is where the instructions go in the investigation. obviously we carry out the instructions of the government and the policies of the government and that is what we follow. >> host: one final question from a reporter. >> guest: i wanted to get a response to something that agent

konrad motyka brought up. there's there is a distinction in his mind what civil agent should be able to obtain and a criminal investigations of its antitrust or civil rights investigation they might not have the warrant authority investigating a crime so should they be able to search the e-mails with the subpoena? >> guest: bad as extracted allows those agencies with subpoena power like the fcc to continue using that subpoena power and they don't have the authority to as you say produce warrants. so those agencies are given a carveout. when it comes to criminal, routine criminal best occasions we think that you know, law enforcement should be required to have a warrant. >> guest: the government is going to come and read your mail and try to put you in prison.

it violates your privacy rights. i think even some of these civil questions when the government is getting an to decide how you can run your life and what you can can do or whether two companies can merge or whatever, that's a pretty big deal. it is as if it was a -- if you delete something from happening that was otherwise going to happen so i would tend to say if you want to look at people's stuff get a warrant. >> host: konrad motyka, a final word from you? >> caller: my final word is the fbi has enough work to do with the current threats that we face it they don't devote time to frivolous simply looking or attempting to look at people's e-mails and we are not even allowed to do that. we can't do that under present policy and we don't do it. >> host: thank you for your time today konrad motyka of fbi agents association. laura murphy what did you hear from m.?

>> guest: well i heard an overgeneralization about their procedures. we know for example that the fbi has placed certain communities under surveillance, mosques, houses of worship, interest groups like the chinese community in new york and we have broad surveillance power. we think that surveillance goes beyond the fourth amendment. i don't know that there is always a criminal predicate and in fact i am sure there is not always a criminal predicate before the fbi opens investigation or seeks to get information that most people would consider private. >> host: grover norquist? >> guest: i've think it's good. let's require a warrant. there is nothing, to go into

people's mail and to read their mail is an incredible intrusion and a possible threat to the fourth amendment rights that people have and it ought to be if not difficult at least ought to have a hurdle which is proving that you have a reasonable expectation that there is a reason you are doing this. there's a reason that the government has a reason to do it and the laws. i was glad to hear that we don't do it in my answers if you're not doing it you don't mind if we pass a law that says we need a warrant to do what you say you are not doing. and i think we can. we need to move forward within the house and the senate in regular order, take up all the concerns that he wants to race in the more specific. if we got specific with him he backed off and said it was above his pay grade. let's have that discussion

everything in regular order on the senate side in the legislation on the senate side and on the house side they are not exactly the same so let's look at it and talk about it and keep going back and revisiting this every few years aztec knowledge he makes it easier for the government to peek over your shoulder or read your stuff and make sure we are not losing the 2nd amendment to changes -- fourth amendment or the second amendment, to change in technology. >> host: before we get brandon sasso involved and want to play a little bit of video. recently the house judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of ecpa and the acting attorney general was testifying. here is a little bit of her testimony and i want to get your reaction. >> he some suggest the best way to enhance or the sandra ecpa would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to compel disclosure of a female and similar stored content

information from a service provider. we believe that this approach has considerable merit provided that congress consider contingencies for certain limited functions for which is a problem. for example civil regulators typically investigate conduct that while unlawful is not a crime. criminal search warrants are only available if an investigator can show probable cause that a crime has occurred. occurred. tracking warrant authority civil investigators and enforcing civil rights environmental antitrust and a list of other laws would be left unable to obtain communication from providers if they could no longer use the subpoena. >> host: laura murphy? >> guest: we are not talking about getting rid of all the authority. let's make that clear. we are talking about criminal investigations, not civil investigations although grover i think you raise a great concern that area but in the course of a criminal investigation why shouldn't you have probable

cause before you go snooping into somebody's text messages or e-mail messages or medical records or financial records? why shouldn't you have probable cause? why should you use the resources of the federal government to investigate people unless you have solid reasons to do so? you know i think the justice department concerns are addressed in the legislation. there's a carveout for national security. there is a carveout for pedophile investigations. there is a carveout for civil actions subpoenas that don't result in a criminal sanction but if you are going to be investigated and a a path that yuan may lead you to lose your liberty like jail or even by -- it seems to me the government should have enough information before they pursue that to probable cause to get a warrant

before they go through your privacy e-mails. >> guest: the question on what you think the likelihood that this will be done this year by congress and what the purpose of this group is and what actions you hope to take to take up this practice? >> guest: i think we pass something close to what is in the senate right now this year. maybe as far as the house bill which goes a little bit further, and what they restrict and i expect it to happen this year. the biggest challenge is the immigration legislation both which will take up everybody's bandwidth than i would rather do this and there are things to argue about over immigration. >> guest: i agree. i think this is a breathtakingly broad coalition and from the chamber of commerce to the aclu, you don't get that kind of

brevity so we speak for a lot of americans who want their privacy and so i can't see any major party opposition in the future. i just see as grover said maybe time limitations. >> guest: the folks over at justice begin to not walk back criticism but acknowledged yes this needs to happen. please watch out for certain specific concerns we have which i think we would argue are being looked at it that is what the regular order of the house and senate committees and the floors do. nothing is being rushed through nothing should be rushed rough. one of the things is these are old laws that we are updating and technology has moved past. [inaudible] >> host: what about t internet service provider's? laura you mentioned some of them

are members of your commission. they been resistant for these requests for electronic communication? does it make them uncomfortable? what is their position? >> guest: i think it does make them uncomfortable because people are now going to cloud services in europe because they have higher privacy protections. they are uncomfortable because it affects their bottom line. they can't guarantee to their customers the privacy of their information. that's a big deal. there are a lot of people who took themselves off of facebook until they change certain privacy policies. so i think to the extent that it affects a business's bottom line they are highly motivated to see the law updated. >> host: grover norquist? >> guest: it's important and it's a broad centerleft center-right coalition that everybody's concerned about privacy and the great thing about the constitution is what